Sure, but it'd be a shame if your legs got broken, and you didn't have their worker protections. A real shame. You should think about how nice it is not to have your legs broken. Maybe you don't want to quite the AFL-CIO?

Republicans have been pushing to have laws passed that makes it easier for you to that and provide protection if you do. There are still a few states where depending on where you work and what you do the answer would be no.
Even if you cannot quit them you should be able to get back any monies that do not directly relate to the union and benefits they can provide. Such as, to use the occupy wall street terminology, payoffs to politicians.

Indeed, try using google to crack open any one of the national labor relations websites, and you'll find that your union DUES money CAN'T be used in any way whatsoever for political action without your knowledge and consent TO BEGIN WITH.

And in my personal experience, you have approximately the same ability to withhold permission to use your dues for political contributions as you do not to join the union in the first place.

That is not accurate. The percentage of the union dues used for representation purposes, etc. (regulated to be 85% as far as I know) is deducted. As I said above, the quitter still gets all of the benefits of being in the union (salary increases, work rules, etc.). It would somehow be fair to have the union members completely carrying the freeloaders?

They can continue to deduct 85% of the union dues as long as you work in that union job. By quitting the union you forfeit your right to vote in any union elections, and your dues are reduced by 15%. That 85% covers the supposed cost to the union to provide negotiation and worker protection benefits (what a joke). But sorry you cannot negotiate on your own, or try and provide a cheaper alternative to the union in non-right to work states. And you are still bound by that union contract, i.e., senority limits on your raises, offers for promotions and so on.

Solution: Try and find a job in a right to work state like Nevada or South Carolina, etc.

At one time Unions had a necessary reason for forming and existing. But with the advent of OSHA their main reason for existing (worker safety and working conditions) is redundant. Now they are pretty much just another cash cow of the Democratic Party and senior Union bosses and also a PAC/lobby. Incidentally that 15% that you can reduce your union dues by is supposedly what unions spend on political activities. Yeah right.

Can't agree, Unions are becoming a bane to worker. I've been in the UFCW, I have suffered because of them and lost a job because of them. Unions restrict your possible earnings. I was offered a raise by the company that I worked for because I had gained certifications, additional skills and had a decent level of seniority. The UFCW stepped in and told them that they could not give me the raise because it was unfair to the other union members. I argued against the union but the only way for me to get the raise was to quit for 30 days and get rehired at the new rate, but I would lose all of my seniority. So I quit. In the interim, the Union told my company that it was unfair to hold the position for me, and made the company fill it.

It's why the same gangsters ran these concessions: recording, publishing, pressing and distribution. This is a "legitimate business" that grew out of racketeering - and has never dispensed with the original ethos - they just went "legit" and lawyered-up.

But that's just it. He sees people getting content electronically online as taking (Stealing) things out of his members trucks.He doesn't care if you bought a legal electronic copy or not. Even if you buy a physical copy his members deliver it. He's speaking solely out of self interest. He doesn't like anything that lets you get delivery electronically.

But that's just it. He sees people getting content electronically online as taking (Stealing) things out of his members trucks.He doesn't care if you bought a legal electronic copy or not. Even if you buy a physical copy his members deliver it. He's speaking solely out of self interest. He doesn't like anything that lets you get delivery electronically.

Too bad for him, as that's the direction of entertainment delivery - no hard copy sitting in your bookshelf, bought at Sam Goody, down on the corner, delivered to that store by loaders and drivers.

The AFL-CIO has never represented the workers. It has always represented the union bosses. When one of the AFL-CIO unions negotiate with a company there are two ways it can go. Management slips a "little something" to the union bosses and the workers get screwed. Or Management stands its ground and both the company and the workers get screwed.

Among the unions affiliated with the [AFL-CIO] Department for Professional Employees are nine representing creators, performing artists, and craft workers. Those unions include the Actors’ Equity Association, the American Federation of Musicians, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the American Guild of Musical Artists; the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts; the International Brothe

That is actually exactly what's at stake. Imagine a future where replicator technology [slashdot.org] is commonplace. We'll be freed from the shackles of cost being linked to the amount of labor and expertise needed to manufacture a physical object. The only limit is going to be materials cost and our imaginations.

So we could have a world where anyone can own a car for the just cost of the metal and plastic needed to construct it. But it won't happen if it's illegal to download the design of said car without paying a $20,000 license fee to Ford, who still holds its 150 year copyright and whose patent portfolio prevents anyone who is not also a big auto company from legally selling you a design.

To paraphrase the ST:TNG episode [youtube.com], the decision we come to in the coming decade or two regarding software patents, copyright extensions and enforcement will extend far beyond music, movies, and software. It will redefine to what degree access to cheap manufactured products can improve the standard of living of the human race. Expanding them for some (IP creators), savagely curtailing them for others (consumers). Are we prepared to condemn the billions who come after us to servitude and slavery by making sure no idea with contemporary value ever makes it into the public domain?

Even if you accepted the "copyright infringement is theft" analogy, SOPA is not about the Internet equivalent of "stealing goods off a truck." Copyright infringement is already illegal and there are already provisions to handle it. You notice your copyright is being infringed, you send a DMCA notice to the website, they take down the infringing material (or open themselves to a lawsuit), and then the uploader gets to respond (to get the stuff put back up). If you want to take down an entire site for copyright infringement, however, you need to first prove your case to a judge.

SOPA takes that pesky judge out of the equation. Suppose that there are 10,000 sellers on SomeAuctionSite.com. Of these, 9,999 are legit. They sell items that nobody would have any problem with. One seller, however, is selling copyright infringing material. (For example, copies of DVDs.) Instead of the DMCA notices, the MPAA could contact the payment processors and ad sites that SomeAuctionSite.com uses to get their operating money. With their access to money cut off, SomeAuctionSite.com closes down. 9,999 legit sellers are taken down to get rid of 1 pirated DVD seller. It's using a bazooka to kill a fly, but the RIAA/MPAA doesn't care because they just want the fly dead and don't care about the collateral damage.

In fact, it's even worse than that example. Suppose that the 1 seller on SomeAuctionSite.com didn't sell pirated DVDs but instead sold photos he took. Now let's say someone looked at one and thought it looked like a photo they had taken. They start to believe that this seller is selling other people's copyrighted photos and send SOPA notices to the payment/ad companies SomeAuctionSite.com uses. Nothing is proven in court, but still funding is cut off and SomeAuctionSite.com closes. Even if that seller is innocent of any infringement. SomeAuctionSite.com isn't even given any notice until their funds are cut off. By that point, their business will be bleeding money until they can clear things up. (Imagine if your business couldn't take any money in for some reason. How long would it last before it closed shop?)

SOPA is a MPAA/RIAA wet dream and a Freddy Krueger for the rest of us.

The problem is in the assignment of the word "theft" to this phenomenon.

Say for a moment that I, personally, am responsible for domesticating wheat. I use this position to control the distribution of wheat and wheat based products, citing that my hard work in the domestication process is what justifies my monopolist behavior.

Now, let's say that some other person finds out that they can grow their own wheat. So, they do. They do this from a single wheat seed that they legally purchased from me.

They plant the wheat, and in a few years, have cultivated enough wheat seeds to start undercutting my monopoly. Let's say that they simply just give away the wheat seeds that they are now producing.

Which does this constitute?

A) stealing

Or,

B) competition

The person giving away the free wheat seeds is not stealing them from my grainary. I am not losing wheat by his actions. What I am losing is market power. I am losing the ability to solely dictate the unit price for wheat. Does this constitute theft? If so, how?

Ahh, but apart from legislation from the bench, lawyers do not create laws. Only interpret existing ones.

From what legal interpretation is the claim that this is theft based?

(I understand that you are making a funny. I do appreciate that. But the bullshit these morons are engaging in is no laughing matter.)

If the argument, is that I, as the original domesticator of the wheat would not have domesticated the wheat without the implied power of being the sole distributor of that product, and that therefor permi

What you are missing is that it doesn't matter all that much that you're right and you didn't actually steal. With enough money and competent lawyers, you can tie someone up in court for so long that they just fold. At that point, theft is indeed defined by who has more lawyers. It is bullshit, it is no laughing matter, and there is nothing you can do about it, short of reforming the current legal system. Furthermore, quite a few people do equate competition with stealing.

Suppose I develop a brand new widget that increases gas mileage by 50%. By dint of my genius I feel I am deserved an exclusive franchise on this invention and use US law to obtain a patent on it.

Now some other person goes out and buys one of these widgets, and uses it as an example to produce many more of these. The manufacturing process includes sunshine, water and fertilizer as it's main inputs. This person decides to include these widge

Yeah! So what we need is a law that allows any corporation to confiscate any car or truck that they claim has any stolen goods in it, or has been used or is likely to be used to carry stolen goods without proof or judicial oversight on those claims.

"We think that Volkswagen over there might have had stolen candy in it, Volkswagens are hippy cars. Confiscate it. And that van over there... you can see those people in the van are singing and I'll bet they haven't licensed the song they are singing for a public

Yeah! So what we need is a law that allows any corporation to confiscate any car or truck that they claim has any stolen goods in it, or has been used or is likely to be used to carry stolen goods without proof or judicial oversight on those claims.

You're aware that this is already legal, right?

That's how the police can confiscate a drug-dealer's stuff and keep it without any inconvenience like warrants, trials, verdicts, that sort of thing.

And if the police take your stuff under those laws, you have to bring suit against them to recover the stuff, after PROVING that you are not, in fact, a criminal....

I'm tired of trying to follow the law within reason. They don't want to play nice, neither will I. I'm off to the store to buy a couple of boxes of DVDs and blurays and I'm going to start giving them away to people I know and ask them to pass more forward. I'm going to pirate like there's no tomorrow because even when I try to play nice they want to screw up the internet. We gave them all the tools to do away with what they deemed inappropriate use of their works and now they want more. No more Mr nice guy. You asked for it. I hope you guys do the same. Pirate for people you know. Money is the only language these idiots understand(the *AAs, not your family).

Ignore the idiot AC. He would rather bitch about somebody _doing_ something then post their "brilliant" plan, because it is far easier to be an arm-chair critic then get off his/her ass and do something.

Your idea of "private libraries" is a great idea. Everybody pools in, and takes turn watching the movie(s). Could even do something like DKP and/or some software match up wish-lists amongst everyone.

The trouble is that they're less inclined to pay $30 for that DVD, but now they have that $30 burning a hole in their pocket and there are still a big pile of other DVDs sold by the same studios that they haven't got.

Again, the important figure is the number of dollars you don't give them, not the number of copies you make. Making a thousand copies and giving them to a thousand people who, rather than not buying a movie, simply watch one more movie that year than they would have otherwise, doesn't cost the

I got through just fine, I think turning javascript off stops the NYT paywall from working. Text of TFA:

China operates the world’s most elaborate and opaque system of Internet censorship. But Congress, under pressure to take action against the theft of intellectual property, is considering misguided legislation that would strengthen China’s Great Firewall and even bring major features of it to America.

The legislation — the Protect IP Act, which has been introduced in the Senate, and a House version known as the Stop Online Piracy Act — have an impressive array of well-financed backers, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Motion Picture Association of America, the American Federation of Musicians, the Directors Guild of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Screen Actors Guild. The bills aim not to censor political or religious speech as China does, but to protect American intellectual property. Alarm at the infringement of creative works through the Internet is justifiable. The solutions offered by the legislation, however, threaten to inflict collateral damage on democratic discourse and dissent both at home and around the world.

The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial. The House version goes further, allowing private companies to sue service providers for even briefly and unknowingly hosting content that infringes on copyright — a sharp change from current law, which protects the service providers from civil liability if they remove the problematic content immediately upon notification. The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar.

Abuses under existing American law serve as troubling predictors for the kinds of abuse by private actors that the House bill would make possible. Take, for example, the cease-and-desist letters that Diebold, a maker of voting machines, sent in 2003, demanding that Internet service providers shut down Web sites that had published internal company e-mails about problems with the company’s voting machines. The letter cited copyright violations, and most of the service providers took down the content without question, despite the strong case to be made that the material was speech protected under the First Amendment.

The House bill would also emulate China’s system of corporate “self-discipline,” making companies liable for users’ actions. The burden would be on the Web site operator to prove that the site was not being used for copyright infringement. The effect on user-generated sites like YouTube would be chilling.

YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have played an important role in political movements from Tahrir Square to Zuccotti Park. At present, social networking services are protected by a “safe harbor” provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which grants Web sites immunity from prosecution as long as they act in good faith to take down infringing content as soon as rights-holders point it out to them. The House bill would destroy that immunity, putting the onus on YouTube to vet videos in advance or risk legal action. It would put Twitter in a similar position to that of its Chinese cousin, Weibo, which reportedly employs around 1,000 people to monitor and censor user content and keep the company in good standing with authorities.

Compliance with the Stop Online Piracy Act would require huge overhead spending by Internet companies for staff and technologies dedicated to monitoring users and censoring any infringing material from being posted or transmitted. This in turn would create daunting financial burdens and legal risks for start-up companies, making it much harder for brilliant young entrepreneurs with limited resources to

Yeah, true. But there are several points to consider that I feel make the quoted statement utterly fallacious. First, an accusation of theft isn't immediately punished; guilt has to be proven first. Second, theft of a physical object means that the original owner loses the object. In the case of a piece of digital property, the original holder hasn't lost possession of anything. The content-creation industry's obsession with immediate punishment before investigation doesn't make sense. It violates the due process rights of the accused for no legally-sound reason. It allows for corporate actions to replace proper review by the judicial system....and it's a short-sidedly, seemingly-logical extension of a content-holder's desire to maximize revenue.

Does anyone else think this was a poor analogy? I thought everyone knew by know that the internet isn't a big truck. It's a series of tubes. Maybe she can come back with an analogy that includes those tubes at the bank drive through or something.

Make the buggers pick one and stick to it. The media should be having a field day with how often they flip backing and forth when it suits their need, but I suspect they are picking sides. Only once that has been defined can a real discussion about how media should be treated could possibly begin.

A license gives you bounded permission to use someone else's property. Someone has to have a proprietary interest before they can provide someone else a license, so the "property or license" dichotomy you suggest that someone needs to "pick one and stick to it" is nonsense. For their to be a license, there must be property.

The Media companies NEED the US gove to pass laws that help them stay alive at the same time the US gov NEEDS US made music and movies to keep the masses entertained while they sneak in censorship laws with each anti piracy bill that is passed.

I'm sorry to go against the general flood of hate against this guy (not that I disagree with it either), but how specifically does the first amendment ban spineless bastards? Yes, I agree they aren't generally good, but nowhere I know of is being a spineless bastard banned (it's supported, in fact, by the current system, but that's neither here nor there).

When contacting your senator do not mention you want to dowload illegal material or that you are just angry and think it is unfair. Mention you work in the I.T. field and are worried about negative implications and liabilitiy risks for non copyrighted or infringement uses that this bill could be abused. Mention it would harm Google's youtube service costing American jobs as they would move overseas. This bill would be costly and could cost American innovation and jobs. Mention we already have existing copyright laws in force and sites like youtube already remove copyrighted or infrindged material in a timely manner and this is nothing but a power grab.

If your senator is a democrats mention your worried about the power grab by the media companies will harm competition. If your senator is a republican mention this would increase government intervention and regulation as it would cost well into the billions of dollars of tax payer money to fund this etc. You all can be creative.

Someone mod this up for the links. I just made it easier for everyone to spend 5 minutes telling your representative how you feel. Remember if you do not pick your voice the RIAA/MPAA will. If all they hear is the RIAA/MPAA then they will vote for the bill as it shows we don't care and like being fucked over. Do your duty.

Let your representative know. Many senators are clueless and if they start getting calls and emails into the hundreds they will quickly notice and re-exam the bill. Trust me even if they are corrupt many are having a tough fight with a 9% approval rating and maybe willing to cater.

Welcome to the Robocall Revolution. We believe that voters should have access to the same technology political groups use to get their message across; so we built a simple web-based robocall tool to literally give citizens back their voice in the political discourse. What better way to exercise your rights to to speech, than to actually speak truth to power?

ReverseRobocall.com provides voters an easy way to communicate with one or hundreds of politicians or political groups using the same technology politicians use, the robocall or automated phone call.

if media piracy was stealing off trucks at red lights in traffic, the law and cops could stop it. like they could stop the Chinese copy shops if China got on board.

the issue is the hearts and minds of the public in the face of a continuous history in recorded media of all kinds of the corporations ripping off the artists, and changing up formats all the time to rip off the customers.

at base is this... a customer can buy a license to use a work for their own purposes... and under fair use provisions of the

As I understand it, I need only send a "take-down" notice indicating a site is infringing on my trademark. The DNS must then be blocked and the site owner must be notified of the blockage. The site owner may then send a counter-notice claiming it should remain unblocked. If the site owner sends a counter-notice the site is unblocked and the matter is referred to the courts. If the site owner does not respond with a counter-notice the site remains blocked.

If I am correct, what is stopping me from drafting a "take-down" notice stating that I own the trademark for MPAA.org? RIAA.org? whitehouse.gov?

Would this not automatically force the specific site off-line until they produce a counter-notice?

You have to keep voting for the less-evil of the two big parties, or the most-evil will get into power. The system sucks, but a duopoly on power is almost as stable as a monopoly. I can't see it being broken short of one of the big two suffering a severe internal split - but that seems unlikely. The democrats don't have enough internal ideological disagreement, and the republicans - while they certainly have plenty of that - have a skilled and powerful leadership that ensures party loyalty.

Heh, yeah, this "democratic republic" isn't about giving power to its citizens. It's just about preventing revolutions by making people think they can get some sort of change once their group size tips slightly over 50%.

And it does a damn fine job of it:-P

How did the Roman democracy finally fail? Decayed from within. So we don't even really have to do anything about it, just let the powers-that-be proceed on their present course of action:-D

I keep hearing everyone say that your best bet is to vote against the worst candidate since third party does not have enough votes. As long as the media has enough people thinking this way, the duopoly wins. Why not vote for who you want rather than the lesser of two evils? If enough people start voting for who they want, you will start to see the top two parties lose percentage points to lesser known parties. Yes, this might not make a difference this election, but it has the potential to in the future

Every now and then we try that. The most recent example was in 2000, when enough people voted for Ralph Nader to decide the election.

I will point out that the "lesser of two evils" is a false dichotomy. If you wait for November next year, yeah, that's what it comes to. If you want more choices, get active in the parties -- the people who actually put in the work year in and year out have a lot more leverage than those whose whole involvement amounts to checking a few lines on a ballot.

It's known as the Spoiler Effect and it got both Clinton, via Perot and Bush, via Nader elected. Somehow, it got stirred up into anger at the "third party" candidate, when the real problem is that the US uses a simple plurality voting system that is extremely biased towards a two party system since voting any other way risks throwing your vote away on a spoiler. The fundamental problem is that simple plurality is the best functional system for choosing between exactly two options. For all numbers other than two, it's the worst functional system (there are other, worse, systems, but I wouldn't consider them functional). All of the known single pass systems have paradoxes, but the one that the US actually uses has the worst paradox in the Spoiler Effect.

Then, of course, the Democrats and Republicans, realizing they have a duopoly, work together to ensure it stays that way. For example, the so-called "presidential debates" are a purely Democrat/Republican media affair. There's no invitations for other parties to participate and no established mechanism for other parties or independents to join. Real presidential debates would last about a month and be either arranged tournament style like an actual debate competition, or in some format that allowed every candidate to debate every other candidate. Instead, there's just a polished media event between members of the traditional duopoly arranged by power brokers. I'm not going to say that voting in the US is a sham per se, but I would like people to think about how many US elections have been decided based on a difference in votes that was actually smaller than the margin of error in the voting system (which the debacle in Florida a while back that was sorted out in part by the brother of one of the candidates makes abundantly clear).

If enough people start voting for who they want, you will start to see the top two parties lose percentage points to lesser known parties.

This is the problem. Those points are coming from the party which is closer to your position. Sure, if enough people join in you may be able to get someone even closer elected (though they may turn out to be just as bad once they're in power). The odds of that happening in any given election, however, are minuscule, so you'd just be hurting your own interests. If your candidate doesn't win, you've had no more positive effect on the election than if you'd stayed home. Rather than voting for third-party candi

'Vote with your feet' lacks any real teeth within a centralized, Federalist system. Different states and localities lack the sovereignty necessary to demonstrate the superiority of a radically different method of government. I agree the idea is a good one, in fact I fully identify as a panarchist because I have come to realize that there is no perfect system under which every person can be happy, but the first necessary change would be to decentralize authority, and good luck ever achieving that.

...and then the thing I said would happen, did. The Whigs and the Republicans merged. Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican. The fact that most of the former Whigs joined the Republicans rather than the other way around doesn't really change anything. You can't get a stable third party with a first past the post voting system. The incentives for the two most similar parties to merge are too overwhelming.

What is your position on Captain Picard stationed on the Enterprise replicating the Earl Gray Tea leaves off of your trucks?

Thank you.

Sorry, dude, but the Enterprise is a tool of the government. Did you actually not think about that all these years? Earl Grey Tea supplier, which provided the original pattern for the replicator probably got a big payoff.

While I am knowingly replying to two trolls, it makes for a poignant comment.

The rest of the world isn't too worried about this I think. With actions like this, America is just making itself more and more of a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. The credibility of America has been in decline for decades and eventually it will write itself out of the world stage that it so desperately want to stay in.

I am not saying that everyone in the US is to be painted with the same broad brush, but the folks at the top certainly seem to have free reign to write their own legislation and rules. With that sort of playing field, it is only a matter of time before all the other teams stop turning up to matches.

The "LOL! American Freedom!" comment is actually the most insightful and intelligent of the 40+ comments currently posted under this story.

Using just three words, the author managed to make the following points:1) That American citizens and organizations claim to hold freedom in high regard, but then hypocritically practice the complete opposite.2) That the American government claims to hold freedom in high regard, but then hypocritically practices the complete opposite.3) That most Americans are oblivious

The rest of the world is worried about the extent that this will spread outside your borders. The US is a very imperialist nation and will try very hard to press other nations into similar situations. They have to, because if they're the only draconian nation they're at an economic disadvantage, to say the least.

So yes, we're worried about NAFTA, ACTA (and PATRIOT as it relates to cloud services). Beyond that, we couldn't care less. You're deluding yourself if you think the US has any credibility left. We'r

The rest of the world SHOULD be worried. If SOPA (etc) passes it will effectively make a good chunk of the internet subject to US law. The remainder of the internet will either be willingly subject to US law, or risk exile outside of the "Great American Firewall"

If this gets rammed through your government, it WILL change the internet.